Blues Trade Proposals 2018-2019

[Blueston]

The expansion is too far away to prepare for now. The best preparation for the expansion would be to do nothing and let some contracts fall off prior to it getting here. We aren't going to worsen our roster early just to keep from losing someone. That makes no sense at all. If we get stuck with a quality player possibly on the block, there will be some team somewhere with that position of need, and room to take them in return for picks/prospects, etc. It happened with Vegas' draft, too.

The teams that were hurt most by draft were the ones who were spooked by it and paid top assets to Vegas. Florida, Minnesota, Columbus, NYI, etc.. Best to not weaken team out of fear of what could happen. If we have so much talent that we lose a good player, so be it. Just don't compound problem by giving away more.

 

[WiscoBlues]

I don't see the issue with just going the 4/4/1 route. Protect Tarasenko, ROR, Schwartz, Schenn, Pietrangelo, Parayko, Dunn, and Edmundson. The only exposed guys worth taking in that scenario are Fabbri and Kostin. Regardless of who they'd take, Kyrou would just step up and fill that role and we wouldn't miss a beat. I think we're set up nicely.

 

[DatDude44]

I don't see the issue with just going the 4/4/1 route. Protect Tarasenko, ROR, Schwartz, Schenn, Pietrangelo, Parayko, Dunn, and Edmundson. The only exposed guys worth taking in that scenario are Fabbri and Kostin. Regardless of who they'd take, Kyrou would just step up and fill that role and we wouldn't miss a beat. I think we're set up nicely.

two years down the road, those two could both be bonafide top6 wingers....that'd be a tough pill to swallow....maybe we can shuffle some picks around and get them to take a 34 yr old bozak.

 

[rumrokh]

I'm all for playing the fantastical projection game, but my guess is that Vegas's success will mean some different expansion rules for the next team unless Vegas immediately bombs out and stays bad. The Blues very well might not have to face exposing so many important players.

 

[jbron]

When Seattle is awarded the next NHL franchise the NHL has already stated that the same expansion rules that were applied to Vegas will stay the same.

 

[mk80]

Will we lose a good player to a Seattle expansion? Yes, most likely.

But it's one player and will hurt to see a guy like Edmundson, or a Fabbri or someone go, but we should have other prospects and options to replace them internally. Ultimately it's also one player, I don't want to be a team like Minnesota, or Florida, ect. who paid extra not to lose someone, and ended up losing more, and hurting themselves on replacing that talent in the immediate future.

 

[rumrokh]

When Seattle is awarded the next NHL franchise the NHL has already stated that the same expansion rules that were applied to Vegas will stay the same.

Is that legit official (with a link of some kind, perhaps)?

 

[Alklha]

Is that legit official (with a link of some kind, perhaps)?

Here

 

[TruBlu]

The teams that were hurt most by draft were the ones who were spooked by it and paid top assets to Vegas. Florida, Minnesota, Columbus, NYI, etc.. Best to not weaken team out of fear of what could happen. If we have so much talent that we lose a good player, so be it. Just don't compound problem by giving away more.

That was my point.

 

[WeWentBlues]

If we could trade one of our top 4 D for a draft exempt D who projects to be as good, that would be eating our cake and having it too. Not to mention the cap benefit between a defenseman on their ELC vs what our top 4 make outside of Dunn. I think Parayko is the one name tossed around the most because he would return the most.

Cal Foote fits this concept perfectly. Are there enough sweeteners in Tampa to make the short term downgrade worth it? That's the million dollar question in my mind.

 

[BlueDream]

As it stands right now, we could protect our entire core (Tarasenko, Schwartz, Schenn, ROR, Parayko, Dunn, Edmundson, Pietrangelo). 4 forwards and 4 D. That is a pretty nice setup right there.

Yeah I like Fabbri but if he’s the guy we lost I’d live with it. We have adequate depth to not worry about it.

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

I think a lot will change their tune after Fabbri makes his comeback - he’s still a big part of our future, IMO.

We will make a deal to protect him, I think. He will be worth more to us at that point than a pick - even if that pick is a first.

 

[Oberyn]

If Fabbri starts to look like the player before his injury, he's not someone I'd be okay with losing in the expansion draft. A healthy Fabbri was one of the most dynamic forwards on the Blues, there's no way you give that up for free.

 

[HighNote]

Is re-injury more likely if the knee has been injured twice before as opposed to once or never? I'm not much of a doctor.

 

[A Real Barn Burner]

Is re-injury more likely if the knee has been injured twice before as opposed to once or never? I'm not much of a doctor.

1 year? Kinda hoping Armstrong would have faith and sign him to a multiple years at a really low AAV.

1 year might be much more fair but if Fabri has a breakout year could be harder to fit in long term.

I’m not an expert on ACL tears, and some of you on this forum know a lot about them. If Fabri gets through the year without any reinjury is he less likely to have this happen again in the next few years? Basically I’m asking if there’s less risk for a multi year contract if he shows the knee has recovered.

Short answer: Technically yes.

Long answer: Technically yes. I read a recent study that went in depth on players who have had an acl tear/multiple tears and their effectiveness when returning plus their likelihood of re-injuring their repaired knee, and if I recall correctly, all of them have returned to be just fine. Speed is a factor, but ability to play and continue to produce don't change that much, if at all. The only correlation between an acl tear and the player returning is how long their career is, which turns out to just be around 4-5 years. Unfortunately for Fabbri, he has had a tear on the same knee in less than a year, so he needs to be real careful with how he's doing things if he plans on playing for another 5 years. He could just be a player that has bad knees, but we won't know until he gets out there and plays again.

I asked the same question in his re-up thread.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Is re-injury more likely if the knee has been injured twice before as opposed to once or never? I'm not much of a doctor.

There are probably studies on that, but I'm not sure how relevant they are to this specific situation. There's almost certainly no NHL study on the matter because there simply aren't enough data points to analyze.

Generally speaking, return to sport outcomes after ACL surgery are very, very good for NHLers...far above those for many other sports. Close to 100%.

Also generally speaking, return to sport outcomes for those with revision ACL surgery are worse than those who only have the surgery once, but not massively so. One meta-study I saw suggested a decrease somewhere in the 5-10% range. I don't remember the exact number, but I posted the study here a long while back so it's probably something that can be found if you want it. It was not specific to high-level athletes, much less NHLers, IIRC...but the data suggests that "worse" shouldn't automatically be equated to "bad." There aren't enough revision ACL surgeries that happen in NHLers to have any empirical confidence in outcomes specific to the league.

Personally, I think the likely range of outcomes is more optimistic than what's commonly believed by fans, but time will tell.

 

[Mike Liut]

I dont like comparing stats from sports like soccer and football to hockey when it comes to re-injuring the ACL. The reason is, those 2 sports have SO many more ACL injuries than hockey mostly because of the solid ground surface vs ice. Most sports related ACL tears are from non contact due planting/cutting/turning etc on the ground / turf. Hockey doesn’t have this concern. I think this favors Fabbri immensely.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

Ultimately I think the expansion draft is going to come down to a question of Robby Fabbri vs Vince Dunn and I don’t know the answer.

 

[Xerloris]

If Fabbri returns to form, offer a 1st to not take Fabbri. Dunn will be to valuable at that point to risk but Fabbri will definitely still be worth the first.

 

[rumrokh]

Ultimately I think the expansion draft is going to come down to a question of Robby Fabbri vs Vince Dunn and I don’t know the answer.

Right now, the answer is incredibly obvious to me: keep Dunn. I suspect that'll be the same every week between now and expansion.

And I love Fabbri and think he'll bounce back and be a legit scoring line player. If you're at risk of losing a player like that, I think you'd sooner trade him to another team who can protect him, but Dunn is more valuable.

 

[The Note in MI]

A PPQB offensive D man is probably gonna carry more value than a 2nd line LW...as much as I love Fabbri.

 

[BlueDream]

A PPQB offensive D man is probably gonna carry more value than a 2nd line LW...as much as I love Fabbri.

Especially because our depth up front is going to be fine. You lose Fabbri and you still keep Perron, Bozak, Steen, Kyrou, Thomas, Kostin, Bokk, etc to play behind the "big 4" (ROR, Schenn, Schwartz, Tarasenko). I'm not worried about our offense moving forward.

Unless we have a plan on how to replace Dunn, I don't think he should ever be an option to leave unprotected.

Don't get me wrong, I hope we don't lose Fabbri either. But Armstrong has completely revamped our offensive depth in a huge way this offseason.

 

[LetsGoBooze]

I think expansion talk at this point is fairly irrelevant. Too many circumstances could change between now and then (Pie/Schenn). Also, after Vegas' success i think GMs will smarten up and be more willing to move players of value out b4 the expansion draft. I have full faith if were gonna lose a player of significant value, Army will make a move.

 

[TruBlu]

With the draft being a couple of years away, there could be legitimate discussion of whether Fabbri, or possibly Perron are put on the block. If Fabbri returns to form, and both are putting up similar numbers, I'd probably put Perron on the block again considering we have a couple of RW in development right now.

 

[Alklha]

I think expansion talk at this point is fairly irrelevant. Too many circumstances could change between now and then (Pie/Schenn). Also, after Vegas' success i think GMs will smarten up and be more willing to move players of value out b4 the expansion draft. I have full faith if were gonna lose a player of significant value, Army will make a move.

The problem before the last expansion draft is that GM's couldn't find trade partners.

Florida, Minnesota and Anaheim are the three teams that made a complete mess of it.

Florida was down to infighting within the front office. The analytics guys wanted to keep Marchessault & Smith, the others wanted to dump the Smith contract. They went the wrong way.

Minnesota and Anaheim had 4 high value defensemen and mediocre players with NMC's. The problem they had is that interested teams weren't making good offers because they could still only protect 3 defensemen, so they had to factor in that the cost for the defenseman was assets + losing one of their current top-3 in the expansion draft.

If Anaheim wanted to protect their top-4 defensemen then they would have been forced to expose Rakell and Silfverberg, both coming off 49 point seasons.

If Minnesota wanted to protect their top-4 then it would have left Niederreiter (57 point season), Coyle (56) and Zucker (47) exposed.

Trading a forward is far easier under the circumstances, because the acquiring team would still only be exposing third liners. Anaheim and Minnesota couldn't go that route because they'd be exposing multiple high value forwards.

It doesn't look like we'd be in such a weak negotiating position, so there isn't any reason to be concerned.